Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:30 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:25 pm...you still live with your mother.

The premise is unsound. Just like atheism.

What is the premise of atheism?

Be careful becuz u can be entrapped by your own question, Will.

When a theist akses u if u believe in god, never say no becuz that means you've acknowledged and given sense to the word 'god'... and if you've gone that far, it's not a yuge step to suppose you're reasoning could be dubious and there very well may be this 'god'. I mean clearly u have some idea of this 'god' or u wouldn't have so quickly answered. See what i mean? Entrapment bro.

Instead u answer like N. Chom answered: 'i'm sorry i don't understand the question.'

Me, I'm not an atheist for the same reason. I have no idea what it is like to not believe in something that doesn't exist, so I couldn't tell u what to do or how to be one.

I can believe in something that doesn't exist, or not believe in something that does exist. But not believing in something that doesn't exist (to not be believed in)... well that's just bizarre.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:47 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:30 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:25 pm...you still live with your mother.

The premise is unsound. Just like atheism.

What is the premise of atheism?

Why are you asking me? I am not an atheist.

Speaking of premises, It's quite striking that you think your whimsical rejection of P1 carries as much weight as the time and effort spent over milenia attempting to find a counter-example to the premise.

Total disregard for proof of work. You must be so unique and thpethial being able to just intuit that everybody else must be an wrong, and yet you can't seem to provide the counter-example yourself.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 5:33 am Be careful becuz u can be entrapped by your own question, Will.

When a theist akses u if u believe in god, never say no becuz that means you've acknowledged and given sense to the word 'god'... and if you've gone that far, it's not a yuge step to suppose you're reasoning could be dubious and there very well may be this 'god'. I mean clearly u have some idea of this 'god' or u wouldn't have so quickly answered. See what i mean? Entrapment bro.

Instead u answer like N. Chom answered: 'i'm sorry i don't understand the question.'

Me, I'm not an atheist for the same reason. I have no idea what it is like to not believe in something that doesn't exist, so I couldn't tell u what to do or how to be one.

I can believe in something that doesn't exist, or not believe in something that does exist. But not believing in something that doesn't exist (to not be believed in)... well that's just bizarre.

If you think this is a game of entrapment, then here's total transparency.

Here is a question/challenge: Please define "nature", and provide us with some example of something that is NOT nature; anything unnatural? If you provide any example whatsoever then you are acknowledging that there exists something beyond nature. So there goes atheism (or any rejection of the supernatural) up in flames.

And if you are so smart and wise to understand the "trap" then you would simply say "I don't understand the question - everything is natural." which traps you into committing the persuasive definition fallacy, because you are using the term "natural" in a idiosyncratic all-encompassing way that makes it a tautology; and therefore - not even wrong. Which renders it vacuous of any information content.

It also "traps" you into having to claim that everybody who uses the term "unnatural" in some meaningful way must be a deluded idiot, because the word "unnatural" simply has no justifiable usage in a world where everything is natural. What are those idiots even talking about ?!?

Heads - you lose. Tails - you lose, but it's not your fault.

The NON-natural is a necessary consequence of choosing classical deductive logic as a theory of truth for nature. Of course, theists keep telling you that - God is a necessary being, but nobody understands what they mean.

If you believe in classical logic then you must believe in a necessary non-natural moral authority. The end.
So that's literaly all philosophers who advocate for deductive reasoning as the predominant social norm.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:02 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:47 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:30 pmThe premise is unsound. Just like atheism.

What is the premise of atheism?

Why are you asking me? I am not an atheist.

Why are you avoiding the question?
You already claim to know it.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:59 am Why are you avoiding the question?
You already claim to know it.

Follow your own advice, cupcake: Learn to read, then fuck off.

I have no idea what the premise of atheism is, nor do I care to know - I am not the one talking about it.

Most likely it has no premise - it's probably just a knee-jerk position lacking any logical aforethought.

.

This a tangent:
I think the nartural artificial distinction can be a useful distinction in everyday speech.
I think the natural/supernatural distinction is silly. There are people on both sides of the divide there whose beliefs end up making it useful for their battles. But me I figure is something is real, then it's natural. If it's not real, it's not supernatural, it's not.
Philosophical naturalists have defined themselves in contradistinction to religious dualists. Which leads to all sorts of silliness. In a sense they could be called post-Abrahamist monists. So, while generally arguing that science is the way to find knowledge, period, they assume they know the future conclusions of science, so they can rule out the possibility of certain things because they are supernatural. But, then, that's not science. Those things they rule out might exist but, yeah, simply be parts of nature we can't confirm, right now, via science.
Of course philosophical naturalists are mirrored by similar conflations on the part of some theists, especially strongly dualist theists who are likely to want to use the word transcendence at some point.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:01 pm I think the nartural artificial distinction can be a useful distinction in everyday speech.
I think the natural/supernatural distinction is silly.

Connotation vs denotation.

If we are doing denoting (e.g ontology) and we construct an ontology with only two fundamental categories (natural as per Oxford definition, non-natural) then both "artificial" and "supernatural" exists with the same ontological category: NON-natural.

They have different connotations, but that's no longer ontology. That's a consequentialist consideration of the effects those words have on other minds.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:01 pm If it's not real, it's not supernatural.

That's just the mysticism and over-zealous imagination creeping in. The Oxford definition says nothing about sky daddies and magic; or things beyond the perceived boundaries of the knowable.

It simply speaks about unexplainable experiences.

The sort of "supernatural" you have in mind is beyond phenomenological experience. Soon as you start talking about it - you are are literaly doing creative writing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:01 pm so they can rule out the possibility of certain things because they are supernatural.

All that means is that it falls outside the predictions of the theory. Sure.

So when some low-probability "supernatural" event happens beyond the predictions of the theory and they have no theory/language to fall back on to speak about their experiences... Oh eh! Eh! Mysticism.

Theists say "God".
Scientist says "Hallucination".

It's just paralax between perspectives and accounts - one's the outside view. One's the inside view. Same objective phenomenon though.

Want to talk about its causal properties now?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:19 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:59 am Why are you avoiding the question?
You already claim to know it.

Follow your own advice, cupcake: Learn to read, then fuck off.

I have no idea what the premise of atheism is, nor do I care to know - I am not the one talking about it.

Most likely it has no premise - it's probably just a knee-jerk position lacking any logical aforethought.

THis shows what a fucking lightweight you are
you said

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:30 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:25 pm
...you still live with your mother.
The premise is unsound. Just like atheism

If you are too stupid to know what the premise is then you are not clever enough to know the premise is "UNSOUND"

This is why you avoided the question "what is the premise of atheism" becuase you are a dumb fuck

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:24 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:19 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:59 am Why are you avoiding the question?
You already claim to know it.

Follow your own advice, cupcake: Learn to read, then fuck off.

I have no idea what the premise of atheism is, nor do I care to know - I am not the one talking about it.

Most likely it has no premise - it's probably just a knee-jerk position lacking any logical aforethought.

THis shows what a fucking lightweight you are
you said

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:30 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:25 pm
...you still live with your mother.
The premise is unsound. Just like atheism

If you are too stupid to know what the premise is then you are not clever enough to know the premise is "UNSOUND"

This is why you avoided the question "what is the premise of atheism" becuase you are a dumb fuck

I am repeating myself. Learn to read, then fuck off.

I said atheism is unsound.
I didn't say the premise of atheism is unsound.

unsound /ʌnˈsaʊnd/ adjective not based on sound or reliable evidence or reasoning.

If you (as an atheists) don't know what the premises of your atheism are then you are absolutely affirming the unsoundness of your atheism!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:07 pm That's a consequentialist consideration of the effects those words have on other minds.

I've been communication too much with VA, but I have to respond: I don't consider words mind-independent. Apologies in advance. Well, I wrote it in advance of your experience.

That's just the mysticism and over-zealous imagination creeping in. The Oxford definition says nothing about sky daddies and magic; or things beyond the perceived boundaries of the knowable.

It simply speaks about unexplainable experiences.

The sort of "supernatural" you have in mind is beyond phenomenological experience. Soon as you start talking about it - you are are literaly doing creative writing.

I'm mentioning the category. It's not one I care for. And most theists, for example, consider all their posited entities to be experiencable.

All that means is that it falls outside the predictions of the theory.

Ah, it would be nice if it was phrased that way.

So when some low-probability "supernatural" event happens beyond the predictions of the theory and they have no theory/language to fall back on to speak about their experiences... Oh eh! Eh! Mysticism.

Theists say "God".
Scientist says "Hallucination".

And they've both been wrong. People are not very adept with anomalies.

It's just paralax between perspectives and accounts - one's the outside view. One's the inside view. Same objective phenomenon though.

Well if someone says they experience the presence of Jesus and the scientist shouts Hallucination, the scientist is referring to something she didn't experience. Unless they think they are not in a room with a theist.

Want to talk about its causal properties now?

which its?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:02 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:47 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:30 pmThe premise is unsound. Just like atheism.

What is the premise of atheism?

Why are you asking me? I am not an atheist.

So who are you pissing off? If you are defining atheist as anyone you piss off, my guess is that's everyone who doesn't think you're just an idiot.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:02 amSpeaking of premises, It's quite striking that you think your whimsical rejection of P1 carries as much weight as the time and effort spent over milenia attempting to find a counter-example to the premise.

Total disregard for proof of work.

Ha! It's you that has made a claim.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:02 amYou must be so unique and thpethial being able to just intuit that everybody else must be an wrong, and yet you can't seem to provide the counter-example yourself.

Duh! Asking you to prove your claim is not the same as rejecting it. Since I am not making a counter claim, I don't owe you any evidence. You can't prove

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:55 amP1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.

Nothing about my beliefs follows from that fact.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 5:33 amI mean clearly u have some idea of this 'god' or u wouldn't have so quickly answered. See what i mean? Entrapment bro.

I appreciate the warning, but it's probably an exaggeration to say that Skepdick is a halfwit.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:43 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:02 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:47 pm What is the premise of atheism?

Why are you asking me? I am not an atheist.

So who are you pissing off? If you are defining atheist as anyone you piss off, my guess is that's everyone who doesn't think you're just an idiot.

Anybody who self-identifies with those label and feels the argument undermines their beliefs really...

So. You?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:43 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:02 am Total disregard for proof of work.

Ha! It's you that has made a claim.

So did you! You claimed my claim is unsound!

Q.E.D burden tennis with total disregard for proof or work

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:43 pm Duh! Asking you to prove your claim is not the same as rejecting it.

There's two kinds of rejection dummy.

The one kind where you simply stomp your foot and reject the premise because you don't like it and it's convenient to burden me with the proof. This is the kind we call unreasonable rejection.
And the other kind - where you do the work to produce a counter-example to the premise. This is the kind we call reasonable rejection.

Proof of work... You don't get it.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:43 pm Since I am not making a counter claim, I don't owe you any evidence.

Why, yes. Yes you are, darling. In a classical setting opening your mouth to reject the claim is exactly the same as opening your mouth to claim that the negation is true.

You are rejecting a claim of impossibility backed with proof of work spanning millenia. It carries the weight of a single counter-example to demonstrate possibility. Just one - don't break your back burdening yourself with any more than that.

That's if you give a shit about reason.

If you just want to feel good about your beliefs - then you are 100% correct. You can reject it because it causes you cognitive dissonance.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 1:43 pm You can't prove

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:55 amP1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.

Nothing about my beliefs follows from that fact.

EXACTLY.

Your beliefs don't follow from facts.